>>Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:22:35 +0200
>>From: Tuukka Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: wild development ideas
>>
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is parsing. First you have to convert from
>>> LyX formula (sort of LaTeX) to Maple syntax which is *not* trivial
>>> since LaTeX does not preserve the logical structure of the formula
>>
>>Yes, but from LyX ro Octave/Scilab should be actually very easy. Just take
>>a LyX matrix and the conversion to Scilab/Octave is very
>>straightforward. Place the converted data to clipboard. Now just press the
>>middle button to paste it to Scilab/Octave.
I really don't see the point of being able to write matlab code
from LyX; it seems much more efficient to do the other way round:
create LyX or LaTeX code from matlab and import it with input.
Working this way allows to update freely the input by running
the math numeric interpreter. This technique allows also to import graphics
and tables.
The problem of math import from outside LyX is more intricated
for three reasons:
- the typography is complex;
- the macroprogrammation which comes with TeX math mode: importing pieces
of code forbids reuse of macrocommands; this is a minor point
if the code import is efficient beacuse you don't care much
about code duplication then;
- as is, the math mode of (La)TeX is really different from the one
produced by mathed because the latter does mot allow to reenter in text
mode and then in math mode, even with ERT.
So as things are now, Maple e.g. can export to (La)TeX, but going one step
further towards LyX without any ERT in the result does not work
(just run reLyX to check).
Using macros helps in that translation, but LyX lacks currently a
user defined math panel which would made tractable a big set of macros.
Of course, as it has been said elsewhere in the thread, XML/LaTeX
is an issue (there must be a workshop or a symposium about it
next May).
Regards
--
Jean-Pierre
